Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
504 federal appellate · 205 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,510 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably United States v. Grinnell Corp. (1966), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)
504 federal appellate · 205 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 13 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedTampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Times-Picayune Pub Co v. United States · International Salt Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States · United States v. Columbia Steel Co.
Cited together with Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 1,510 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]xclusive dealing arrangements violate antitrust laws only when they foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce at issue[.]”
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is necessary to weigh the probable effect of the contract on the relevant area of effective competition, taking into account the relative strength of the parties, the proportionate volume of commerce involved in relation to the total volume of commerce in the relevant market area, and the probable immediate and future effects which pre-emption of that share of the market might have on effective competition therein.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce ... to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods ... on the condition, agreement or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods ... of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect ... may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.